Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Having read this forum for quite a while and reading various writings on field/wave theory as opposed to the standard particle/wave duality model (which nothing has ever been observed as a particle). I have come to believe that there must be a universal medium of some kind (aether), I believe the modern atomist's attempt to add dark energy/matter to permeate almost all of the universe is their attempt to add a universal medium that they know MUST exist, but do not want to call it "aether" or admit that field/wave theory is the most simple and easily observable explanation. All things are held together by electric and magnetic forces, even DNA and molecules are held together by the "electrostatic force". There is no need for this electric charge to have a container (electron) to carry it, even the so called "electron orbitals" are obviously fields.

Magnetic field through a ferrocell which appears to have "orbitals", but are in fact just fields, not particles in orbit

ArcherSage,Thank you for posting that top image, some of these all-or nothing particle heads playing around with tiny billiard balls; would do well to study those geometries and let them sink in.If current science had the ability to probe deeper into what they are calling elemental "particles", they would probably find an awful lot of 'space' (an aetheric matrix) and organization of flows (waves). Fields have rows (6 or 8 axis), before they have potatoes growing in them.

Most 'particles' are primarily artifacts of detection. There is a reason that electrons and photons can be detected having such a plethora of "speeds, spins, sizes and my favorite: "energies"".Daniel, A concept of fundamental charge units is fine, but if viewed as particles, then we must explain the space between them.

while I don't buy into the standard particle models I do believe that a container is required but only an electromagnetic container. This is why I postulate electromagnetic strands as the base material of the aether in the general form of a random mess.

we know even birkland currents have a generally fixed width when observed in space and this is because they are electromagnetic cylinders which is exactly what an electromagnetic strand is on the most basic scale.

so if there were no electrons or photons both of which are discrete and can travel space, why does energy always need bridges like birkland currents, matter bridges to move around?

both electrons and photons which are the same thing with a different shape are required to be discrete units to avoid the requirement for bridges to transfer their energy.

Webbman wrote:we know even birkland currents have a generally fixed width when observed in space and this is because they are electromagnetic cylinders ......both electrons and photons which are the same thing with a different shape are required to be discrete units to avoid the requirement for bridges to transfer their energy.

BC's are actually extended vortices (screws), which Appear as concentric cylinders when plotted head-on or cross-sectioned....Agreed, both e and p are the same function, with different scale of forms.

Webbman wrote:we know even birkland currents have a generally fixed width when observed in space and this is because they are electromagnetic cylinders ......both electrons and photons which are the same thing with a different shape are required to be discrete units to avoid the requirement for bridges to transfer their energy.

BC's are actually extended vortices (screws), which Appear as concentric cylinders when plotted head-on or cross-sectioned....Agreed, both e and p are the same function, with different scale of forms.

I agree they are screws or helical forms but cylinders is their general shape for simplicity. If you take a bundle of cat6 and twist it straight the cat 6 will actually lose its resistance to outside interference. The twist in its design gives it special properties. Same model for light in my view its just that light is more extreme and basic. You do see my point that twisting even wires can give it special properties ie can make it immune to interference etc.

Yes, current travel in waves. Energy always transfers as a wave, when you punch someone in slow motion you can see this. If you could see every step you took absorbed into the ground you would see a wave. Here are a few interesting examples of how the shape of a wave is everywhere.

Enzymes/Proteins, even Rhodopsin that interprets visible light WAVES has the shape of a wave

DNA

RNA

The photoreceptors in the eyes should be called "frequency or wave interpreters" because that is what they are. They are fine tuned to receive certain wavelengths and convert them into an electric signal so you can perceive light. The ears have the same system of interpreting sound waves and converting it into an electric signal, the question is how can your brain differentiate between the electrical signal that was converted from either the sound or light wave. They are not taking particles of light and converting it into a signal, it is absorbing wavelengths.

One of my pet-peeves is discussing wave theory with my quantum friends. Do you really think photons are created when you turn your light bulb on, then stop existing when you turn it off? Or when you turn your computer on, photons are emitting? Or that your Wi-Fi signal contains particles? Its waves and fields. Light is a field, it has a range not based on the photons, but based on the energy of the source. You can see this with streetlights at night covering a certain area but not the whole street, its a field of light not photons having a limited range of illumination.

Nobody has defined it yet, except possibly Ken Wheeler with his aether theories. Fields are massless and without particles yet can have an effect on matter itself. Light has never been observed or proven to be anything but a wave, the double slit experiment makes much more sense when you realize that the light is a wave the ENTIRE time, not just when you observe it. They keep saying light is a photon until you observe it then it becomes a wave, NO...it is a wave the entire time. Our body perceives light and sound etc as waves, our bodies function as a wave absorber of sorts. Not only can they not define a field, they cannot define what a thought is. We see brain activity in the form of electricity, however that is not the thought itself. If it was, what distinguishes the electrical low in my brain from yours? How can my electric activity be different than yours and create different thoughts? Here is a good question, what is a shadow made of? What is it only visible on surfaces? Do shadows exist outside of visible light? How are we able to see a shadow if a shadow is lack of something, you can only see the shadow when light is present. But can animals that have night vision see shadows in the dark?

Aether. There is no such thing as a vacuum. Sound waves require a medium but do not work in a vacuum right? Wrong, we cannot perceive it in a vacuum. The vibration still exists, but it does not propagate.Yet somehow visible light waves are capable of traveling 93 million miles through the vacuum of space and the heat/energy is not lost. The real question is, why can light waves travel through space and be received on earth, but sound waves from space events are not. Why don't we hear sounds from space explosions, surely the sound wave would not be heard in space UNTIL the vibration reached our atmosphere then we would hear it.

Einstein actually got a noble prize for particle explanation of the photo-electric effect. And since thenEinstein always has been fighting against quantum mechanics, that actually showed that every "particle" is actually a wave.It is always fun to see him wrong again.

And then we have observations of "particles" not existing at all, because a single "particle"can arrive at two places at the same time.This usually disappears behind statistics.See: Thresholdmodel.com.

Instead of particles we have thresholds.The idea is that a photon-energy (light) is evenly distributed in the form of waves.If the energy reaches a certain level (a threshold), the electron that receives the energy movesto a different state. Because of this sudden state-change it seem that there is a particle,while there is actually none.

ExplanationState before: 95184076237085214963State after receiving light:X6295087348196325X74Detector says:X________________X__It seems as if 2 photons have been detected.

This theory matches with all quantum experiments that I know of and gives a very simpleand down-to-earth solution.

Yes, how does electromagnetic radiation (waves) penetrate solids? Because it isn't made of particles, and neither is what it penetrates. Rather the wavelengths allow it to phase through something else depending on the other objects resonance. It does not make sense that particles are going through particles. You can measure what you think are electron activity, but they only have things attributed to electrons..such as EMR, or static discharge etc, none of these things are proof of a particle, simply proof of energy

ArcherSage wrote:Yes, how does electromagnetic radiation (waves) penetrate solids? Because it isn't made of particles, and neither is what it penetrates. Rather the wavelengths allow it to phase through something else depending on the other objects resonance. It does not make sense that particles are going through particles. You can measure what you think are electron activity, but they only have things attributed to electrons..such as EMR, or static discharge etc, none of these things are proof of a particle, simply proof of energy

Very nice approach. Terms such as "particle" (the idea), and what the post points out as the ability "to phase through something else" via resonance seem also to lend to interpretive ideas of these "foci" ("the state or quality of having or producing ... definition" or volumetric extension) also having the ability to 'transduce'. Webolife's "centroid" also has interpretive bearing imho. Perhaps the work of:

... would be of interest. An intangible focused haze of vortical motion(s) and the so called "fields" than induce and/or influence the foci are interesting phenomena in relation to this thread. Particularly interesting for Member Webbman are the "chained vorticies" mentioned near the end of the first referenced video and how the orientation of the magnetic field brings about this effect. The first reference is quite long but makes for interesting notes.

Enjoy.

"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

the difference between magnetic flux and electromagnetic strands is that the strands were always there and the current only aligned them. aka the aether is the electromagnetic strands and magnetism is alignment of that soup.

the field is just an alignment of something that was always there. The soup.